Is Atheism just another cult, with their own dogma, like religious cults?

Is Atheism just another cult, like a religious cult, with people who believe there is no god, and in most cases also that what is presented by science is the absolute truth? Do people of an Agnostic persuasion believe, atheists have a blind faith in science, believing what they show, and measure is the last word about reality; believing that this Science supports their side of the debate while excluding the Religious view.

Those in the middle of the God/No God debate (Agnostics) have stated that such a claim is delusional and is indicative of cult mentality on par with religious cultism. It requires blind belief God does not exist which is dogmatic because there is no proof (currently) that is acceptably to the Agnostic crowd that God is or is not. Agnostics see the gaps in Scientific knowledge and try to keep an open mind pertaining to spiritual ideas and their connection to the real world. They have sometimes been accused of creating the Scientific idea of Creationism which has gathered steam in the last decade or so. Being in the middle, They are attacked by both sides of the debate, as will be demonstrated in this debate question.

Biting and Kicking is allowed by the Author and leaves it to TED to tell us where the limits lie.

Closing Statement from John Moonstroller

"Is Atheism just another cult, with their own dogma, like religious cults?"

“The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.[1] The word originally denoted a system of ritual practices. The word was first used in the early 17th century denoting homage paid to a divinity and derived from the French culte or Latin cultus, ‘worship’, from cult-, ‘inhabited, cultivated, worshipped,’ from the verb colere, 'care, cultivation'.” ~ Wikipedia

“Dogma is the official system of belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization” ~ Wikipedia.

Organizations of atheists ritually denounce the existence of God. They have become an organization, dedicated to the activity of removing all relic’s of Theism from public places. Their dogma is based entirely on their notion or belief that God does not exist. These organizations work tirelessly towards this effort.

It is no longer possible for an individual to simply state they are an atheist, by reason of personal belief, and not be affiliated, by membership or indirect alignment with these organizations.

These organizations have an official system of belief and their doctrine is to end the belief of theism on this planet.

They are exclusive, ritualistic, and have a belief system which generates activity within and beyond the boundaries of the organization. They are a Cult.

Not everyone agrees with this interpretation but the meaning of words evolve over time. To be an Atheist is to believe in a dogma and be a member of a club or organization. In the least, an individual is indirectly aligned with these clubs or organizations by belief or personal assertion they are an atheist.

Sep 25 2012:
"I don't understand the statement about agnostics or creationism. What do you mean?"

I meant calling atheists cultists because they have blind faith that there's no proof that God does NOT exist, is not something I've ever heard an agnostic say. I've heard creationists say things like that, because they often do not understand where the burden of proof lies. Generally, agnostics understand that you don't need proof that something DOESN'T exist; you would need proof that it DOES exist.

"Tim, most of this question has already been answered by other commentors."

Sorry, I thought it was a debate, not a question. I was weighing in with my take. But you're right, I'm sure my points have already been made by others. (And, yes, the forum setup is a bit confusing, with newest posts on top, but nested replies.)

Sep 25 2012:
Well Tim Powers, you say, "I meant calling atheists cultists because they have blind faith that there's no proof that God does NOT exist, is not something I've ever heard an agnostic say.".

I say, obviously you haven't heard everything there is to know on the matter.

It is a debate. But if you don't read, how can you properly debate? How can your debate skills be demonstrated and used to persuade others of the correctness of your position or idea, if all you do is repeat the same thing over and again? Doesn't that have more to do with being a parrot in a tree, than a debater of ideas?

We all have something to say, but if someone has already said it, of what worth is an echo? Why reinvent the wheel?

Sep 25 2012:
"I say, obviously you haven't heard everything there is to know on the matter."

Then you're prepared to cite your sources, correct? Given that it would be a really ignorant thing for an agnostic to say, I tend to wonder if you attributed the notion to agnostics, when you meant to attribute it to a common creationist stance.

"We all have something to say, but if someone has already said it, of what worth is an echo? Why reinvent the wheel?"

I find this curious. Surely you don't imagine your debate point is original, so what was the worth of your echo? If you're allowed to echo a question based upon an incorrect notion of where the burden of proof lies, I'm certainly allowed to echo a logical correction.

Sep 25 2012:
My intentions in the debate, were to illicit comments on the issue of how people view atheism and it's characterization as almost a religion of total counter theism, rather than a debate on the idea of religion. If religion is theism, than is atheism simply anti-theism? If the aura of religion or the idea that religion is justified in becoming organized and seeks to mandate their followers proceed to seed the population with this idea, then is it possible for the anti-theistic movement to also do the same?

The role played by the Agnostic is one of wonder and introspection. From this perspective the agnostic can set back and view both parts of the debate and interfere in the mandates or take issue with the postulation of either side. This places the agnostic squarely in the middle. It has absolutely nothing to do with Creationism, but many agnostics are accused of being creationists as demonstrated by some comments to the author of the debate, which is me.

Personally, I like to provoke debate on this issue and taking the side of the Devils advocate is sometimes a good tool to expand some commentators views about whither or not their comment should have weight in the final analysis. Your comments for instance, will be tossed in the bin because you don't offer anything new. I don't mean that personally, just as an example of how the analysis will take shape. I do have to write closing remarks to this debate when it ends. Think about that and see if you might want to participate in a different way. I appreciate your interest.

Sep 25 2012:
Tim I notice you don't have a PM feature on your profile Is there some way to talk to you privately? My personal email is rexrino@moonstroller.com
I can't leave this post up very long because it is off topic and will be deleted. I usually delete them myself but sometimes forget and TED does it for me. :)

Comment deleted

Sep 25 2012:
George Carling was the Cyber bully of Television Don. He intimidated Liberal, conservatives, the innocent and the guilty, alike. Not many people can do what he accomplished in "Real" life. Nothing was sacred to George Carling.

Virtual reality is just that Virtual. It's not real. The people are real (sometimes) but the human element, the soul, the thing inside us that makes us human to other human beings is easily subdued in this virtual environment. Those with a finer grasp of vocabulary have the edge in this arena.

There is a moment in combat when you realize the enemy is dead. That's the time you should stop pumping the lead, so to speak. In the virtual word, the enemy never dies, they always come back and this is an obstacle to some personalities. So, they adopt other methods to try and kill the opposition, They develop Troll and Cyber-bullying techniques, become physiologically and additively attached to these techniques because they believe they have accomplished in the virtual world what they think is the equivalent of the real world. To the pathetic mind, the words and phrases are the ammunition by which they defeat their opponents. An internal sense of Catharsis usually follows the exchange when an opponent appears to be defeated. A sense of pleasure.

There is an interesting debate which took place in October of 2011, involving a different set of TEDsters then are currently online today. It was a debate entitled: "jails should be more widely known as schools", introduced by Griffin Tucker of Canberra Australia. I found this exchange to be very demonstrative of how people can talk about a subject that they have little or no experience with
as if they were experts on the subject and, in the case of some of the members, just outright lie about their connection and experience within the subject area. It was very interesting reading. Sometimes the old conversations are much better than the new. TED is a maze, sometimes a laboratory.

Sep 23 2012:
Hi John. You have mixed up the two different kinds of atheism. The attribute, "people who believe there is no god", is not applicable to Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins, and possible others in the list of TED speakers you have linked to.

On the one hand, the agnostics I have come across have made stronger claims than you. Most state that it is impossible for us to know whether or not a god exists. (which god?) On the other hand, most atheists I have come across, personally or in books and other media call themselves "agnostic atheists" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism.

Putting it in another way, I have come across many atheists, but none of them have the "blind belief God does not exist". They have all said, "demonstrate a proof, and I'll believe".

Sep 23 2012:
John you said, "On the one hand, the agnostics I have come across have made stronger claims than you.". I am an amateur agnostic and don't belong to any organization of agnostics so my pitiful attempts should be overlooked sometimes.

hat said, I will repeat what I have stated in other places in this debate. It is a question that I hope will reveal more truth so we (I) can become more enlightened on the issue, via your wisdom and the wisdom of others. I would add your not the first to offer this information. It has caught my attention and made me scratch my head a bit.

I have read about agnostics, I have not researched them with the intentions of writing a dissertation on their personalities or characteristics or belief system. My lot is internalized towards understanding and defining myself.

If you have suggestions about how I should reword the question, then by all means, state them to me, perhaps the email would be a better venue. If you can prove this with some official evidence or a private poll conducted by you in request to an official posting agency, I will be more than happy to work with you and alter the question and remove the "blind belief" part with the permission of the other contributors here. I suppose we could try polling every one in an unofficial capacity:

How many think the wording of "Blind Faith" should be changed or delete and what would I exchange it with?
One person, one vote.

Until then, I'm kinda stuck with it and don't clearly see any reason to alter it.

Sep 23 2012:
I'm sorry -- I should have been clearer. By "stronger claims", I meant the opposite. Consider the following:
1. Obama has an apple in his left hand right now.
2. Obama may have an apple in his left hand right now.

Sentence 1 is a "stronger claim", requiring the person claiming it to provide evidence. I like the weaker kind of atheism and the weaker kind of agnosticism. I am a "weak atheist" myself. I think it is to your credit that you did not make the stronger claim.

Only after writing what I wrote in my original post, above, did I scroll down and see that others had made similar comments, and mine was quite redundant.

That said, I have a login id on richarddawkins.net. Many people there tend to blame religion for every little thing, rightly or wrongly. Many of them take the attitude that person X is a christian or muslim, therefore, all his principles are wrong. I have often argued against that attitude too. It's generally the opposite on TED. For example, I have heard claims that atheists are immoral, or even that we have no reason to live. I have argued against such people on TED. I don't know if I'd appear to be a cultist in your eyes.

Sep 23 2012:
Here in Cherokee county Georgia. TED is black listed because the people in charge of the school system deem them to bee too anteisic and Liberal, therefore, a danger to the mental health of their children....

That's just the way regional attitudes flow. It's an indication that TED, as presented, as the tool to end all ignorance is just another stop on road to blog city. Some Tedsters believe they have fallen in Liberal Heaven and are very bold. Others think they are warriors on a quest to defeat the dragon monster TED. :)

And no John. I've read nearly all your posts on TED. You are one of the people I'd invite to my forum. I have no problems with you efforts to advance the cause of blogging. I just let you take the foreground in case there might be snipers in the trees. ;)

Sep 24 2012:
I don't quite get what you mean by "I just let you take the foreground in case there might be snipers in the trees." Are you making me the bait for those snipers? I don't mind :-)

I'm not sure if I'd let my own kids venture into TED forums unless they have developed a modest ability for critical thinking, and a hard-enough skin. So, I'm not sure I disagree with what the Cherokee county's decision, despite our differing motivations.

Sep 24 2012:
Yes, the image you imagined was correct. You're the bait.
If your not a Vietnam veteran you don't see the humor in it.

Yes. I agree. I've been a Liberal minded person all my life. Did you see the movie "The Hunger Games"?

I've been trying to analysis the authors internal feelings about the theme. It could just be a commercialization without any real meaning, just pulling on people's neurons a bit. I've read the reviews.

When I imagine the future it takes on the setting in that movie. Complete Isolation of the have from the have none. With education and technology centered near an energy rich, location Like Indiana, or up around the Great Lakes, with the rest of society spread out in districts. I guess it would look more like a Greek City State.

The world my great grandchildren will live in.

I'm not so sure I want the Liberal dream anymore. I'm not sure we will survive to create it.
One day someones going to push the trigger and it will be gone in a flash.

Did you know they exploded over 2000 Nuclear bombs between 1945 and 2009. That's 31.25 bombs per year since 1945.

They say that wwIII would waste the planet but 2000 bombs is a very large number. 31 bombs a year is a large number.

If 2000 bombs didn't destroy the planet, is it possible that we could survive a nuclear war with, say 500 detonations in one weeks time frame?

Sep 24 2012:
No, I haven't seen The Hunger Games. Thanks for the recommendation! I'll check it out one of these days. The sad part for me about all those nuclear explosions is that scientists can no longer do carbon dating of anything created after 1950. It's dead!

Oct 1 2012:
If it's a cult it's a cult everyone is born into.
Atheism has become a handy term to define people who do not believe in god or gods. I am constantly referred to as an atheist but don't consider myself one. How would I describe it? "I don't believe in something that doesn't exist"? I simply consider myself a human being.
That said, if people want to call me an atheist I don't lose sleep over it, better than saying I'm delusional.
The term atheist depends on religion, if religions didn't exist neither would the term atheist. So if it's a cult it is because of religion.

Oct 1 2012:
No one decided that the term atheist would apply to those who didn't believe in God or Gods. It was invented to describe those who did not believe in the God(s) of the defining society. It was a curse word a derogatory word intended to demean or belittle another person who did not share the beliefs of the society in charge.

"The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative (derogatory term) applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society."~wikipedia {with emphasis added by me}

When a Religious person calls you an atheist, it is this fashion they are using the word, so they are correct in their usage.

In this sense it does depend on Religion and it is possible that if there never was any religion, there would not be such a word. But, it could also be argued that by the power of evolution that we would be dinosaurs instead of humans if they weren't wiped out by a cataclysmic event and you wouldn't exist at all as a human being. So, you are a human being by "what?" an act of providence or by design, or just by coincidence?

Oct 1 2012:
If we were having this discussion a few thousand years ago you would be correct but words and language are flexible and their meanings change over time.

In your same wikipedia page you will find:
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities"
All other definitions say basically the same thing. This is the meaning of the word today.

By the way, it is a well known fact that the dinosaurs were atheists. I imagine this angered the boss almighty and may have had something to do with their extinction.

I am not sure if you genuinely misunderstand or are just being obtuse.

Yes there is no teapot, that is the point, but you cannot prove that, and any reasonable person would expect me as a 'teapotist' to prove it's existence, not for you as a teapot atheist to disprove it. That is the point of the example, religion is a belief, and that is fine if people admit it is just that. Otherwise don't hid being the 'you can't disprove it' fallacy and offer some genuine proof. Simple.

Atheism is NOT a journey to disprove something, it is a position that this something does not exist and a statement that there is no real proof for it. It amazes me how words are twisted and games played rather than openness from those who claim to be honest and pious. This does not seem to align with my understanding of the point of religion. But then as an agnostic I guess I can claim I wouldn't understand.

As per my reply to Peter, I don't think atheism is remotely cult like. Some proponent of atheism have been mistakenly drawn into reason and evidence free debates on this subject that does not do them any favours when we should stick to the scientific position of expecting reason and evidence, but that is as far as it goes for me.

As my previous post stated this likely will go round in circles, and we clearly have opposing views the other is unlikely to change. This is proving to be true.

Sep 30 2012:
There is no teapot to hide behind Kevin. I am in the open and never condescending. If theism is the belief then is atheism the anti belief?

A position, as you imply is a point along the path of the journey

What is closed minded and dishonest about the statement: "...there was a man named Jesus who was God, came to this earth as a man, preformed miracles, then ascended to heaven after his death?", which is the claim of the Christians. Perhaps it is true you don't understand; you would know better than I.

Atheism the definition is not a cult. Atheism the dynamic population of organized members, I believe, is a cult. It matches all the definitions of "Cultism". They are an anti-belief.

Sep 28 2012:
John you seem to pay attention to etymology (cultus in Latin, worship). So atheism or agnosticism doesn't imply to worship anything. It's a belief without any specific rules to follow, events to attend or authority.

So I'd answer: No. It is not a cult.
I believe it's just that simple :-)

Oct 3 2012:
We do have festivals to adore one another and birthday parties also. The idea of adoring successful people is documented all over the TED website especially in the Talks section. When we clap our hands, we give reverent respect to the speakers.

Sep 26 2012:
Not all atheists choose to be on the side of science. As for the ones who do, they do so because it makes more sense in their eyes. Atheists don't have a cult or cults, we do not have gatherings (I am atheist) in which we share our religious ideologies. Science isn't a cult either, its just the study of things. Religion has its views on what is true and what is false and they show these very strongly. With science, it looks for the facts of what occurred and didn't. In some sense science can be viewed as a religion because science is looking for similar answers that religion stories say are plausible. As for me I'm atheist because I feel that believing in a creator or a god isn't needed. That doesn't mean I don't take into consideration what others have to say about what they believe. I'll listen to what people say, just so I know their stand point on things, and I don't judge those who believe and who don't. A person shouldn't be judged by their beliefs, and in some cases I feel that religion changes the mind of people into doing just that. Its a way to make a religion grow. Again this is just my opinion, I'm not one to say what is plausible or not.

Sep 26 2012:
By (we) you are really taking about yourself I assume Stephen Torres.

Stephen you can Google and see the number of atheist organizations that have grown since the 60's. It's a large number and the internet has only allowed them to grow stronger. They have a political agenda that is set off from their philosophical views and belief system.

They aim to destroy all religious beliefs and set the world straight. They are just as powerful as a mob organization (criminal) and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. If you are religious, they want you off the planet. All you need do to discover this information is join up and move through the system to the inside circle. I suggest you don't get caught.

These atheist organizations have their tools to stimulate hate, confusion, and conflict. It's strange but sometimes they are allied with christian hate organization. The recent film that has set the Muslim world on fire today is an example of such collaboration. I could say more but I won't. (a hint to the wise.)

Sep 26 2012:
Haha, I didn't know that you had renegade atheists in the US!

I must say that I really enjoy seeing mankind transform into a more enlightened species.

Anyway John, I easily tire of these debates so I'm just going to leave my thoughts and never return to this conversation, enjoy!

First of all science is basically the opposite of dogma, religious people don't really seem to get that...

You really don't get science at all! There would be few things cooler for a scientist then proving that everything we knew was wrong! There is no truth in science, only probability. So you see, the being dogmatic argument goes away quite fast.

I think that religious people "attack" agnostics way more then atheists perhaps do. I as an atheist would only ask an agnostic what kind of odds he/she thinks there is for (a) "God". Most people here seem to be Teapot-Agnostic/Atheist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot

And to answer your question: No, we're not in a cult, it's the other way around!!! I'm really not kidding you, snap out of it man!

Sep 26 2012:
Jimmy: None taken :) It's been fun talking with you. Come back and join us when ever you can. It's refreshing to have a very young perspective on how we old people missed everything there is to know about the world, people and ideas. We were too busy destroying the world to notice I guess.

If I might make a suggestion. Your heading states is atheism just another cult.

That is bundling up all those who don't believe in gods, all those who consider themselves atheists as part of a cult.

Hopefully this is obviously clearly false. As discussed not believing in gods does not mean you automatically belong to any cult. It is a position on one question.

Atheists can join any cult or group they like, but atheism isn't a cult. It is a position on one question.

Now I get your point about some atheists organising for whatever reason. Some might consider religion harmful. Some might even cross lines I consider reasonable. Still I suggest you might consider most of these political or philosophical organisations rather than cults.

You may be doing a disservice to your argument by bunching all atheists together as a cult.

If there are atheists trying to force others to give up religion or other impingements on the rights of others that should be resisted.

Others might like to see an end to religious type superstition or at least the negative impacts, but would not force people to be atheist.

Sep 27 2012:
I really like the post by you obey, I've seen more of them in other debates. Kind of a side note to the last bits you said; if there are atheist organizations trying to end religion by any means, isn't that the same for religions causing trouble for atheists or those of a different belief. What I mean is something like the Crusades, Christians traveled across many countries killing all who didn't fallow their belief system. So in other words history is repeating itself on a daily basis. But now it's by other means.

Sep 27 2012:
So you are saying that the definition of "Cult" is the point of your argument.

That could be a valid point Obey. I could reword the topic but would that be fair at this juncture of the conversation?

Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Neopagan movements[17] such as Wicca,[18] and nontheistic religions. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[19] whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.[20] ~wikipedia

It appears that in some religions, Atheism is a religious notion and as such can be called a cult.

It is similar I guess. I support freedom of religion even though I argue against it in many regards. Mainly because it is so powerful and can be used to excuse many bad things. But I'm okay with religion if it doesn't harm people or isn't forced on others. Even then I will debate if people are willing. I will protest if religion is trying to undermine secular institutions like chaplains and scripture classes in state schools etc.

It's a funny position, like supporting freedom of speech, within limits, even if you use it to disagree with me.

But there is something about religion that is really hard to have reasoned discussion. How do you argue with " because god said so".

Just suggesting that while atheists can join cults or be superstitious or not, atheism is not a cult.

Some atheists may be part of something cultish. But atheism is not a religion or a cult.

I suggest cults do exist. Often led by charismatic individuals. Usually very closed. Jim jones etc. there is a continuum and some groups might easily be classed a cult but others may share some cultish aspects. Remember the om supreme truth sect. Classic cult. Then you have particular immans or preachers under the umbrella of a larger tradition that may influence small groups in a cultish manner, but may not meet all the trappings of a cult.

Sep 28 2012:
Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Neopagan movements[17] such as Wicca,[18] and nontheistic religions. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[19] whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.[20] ~wikipedai.

Note religious affiliations.

Your western minded world mindset is just a part of the whole world viewpoint Obey.

Sep 26 2012:
In some religions what you call "Dogma" is actually what I would call "A foundation"; a basic building block on which the belief stands. Even science has these basics.
It is not that these basics have to be accepted without argument; it is just that sometimes arguing about both basics is like arguing with someone who tells of the sun rising from the north when we all know which direction to look in order see a rising sun.

Sep 26 2012:
you know science and religion are two different things .
once religion had tried to prevent the science development .in the acient the religion try to kill pwople they hurt many famous person who do not agree with their cults ..
while at last science broke out .and now science is the lead of the world .! ist it ?

Sep 26 2012:
They are similar in enterprise-ship, but different in behaviors.

Lol, the way you reference them sounds as if they are in opposition to one another - which is not the case.

Some religious groups do still try to prevent scientific investigation, but in touche topics like stem cells and fetus research. Which they should be touche, playing 'God' in a laboratory should be heavily mandated by some form of policy - similar to the laws involved in cloning.

Sep 26 2012:
I was just thinking along this line yesterday, then forgot it. I'm glad you brought it up. I'll have to look at my notes but there is something very useful in what we call our "belief" system. Something basic, something lost to newer minds. Something we need to revisit and bring it back into our common knowledge bank.

Sep 27 2012:
Science has the scientific method as a foundation.
Islam has the Koran and bible to a lessor extent
Christianity has the nt and ot to a lessor extent

Science changes when better explanations are found.

Religions tend to resist change.

More different than similar.

In a way science and religion are responses to ignorance. One has led to vaccines, computers, electricity generation and a whole array of technologies that we know work.

I'm writing this comment on an iPad running on electricity, harnessed by science. You can pray to god, sacrifice some goats, but that won't recharge the battery, or make crops grow in the way that science based technologies work.

Sep 28 2012:
I am yet to see a religion that tells one of the herbs for treating diseases; or the ways to build houses; or have a detailed description of the world and its citizens/its geography; I am yet to see a religion that gives one lectures on diet or how to prepare food.

Mr No1Kinobe, you've missed the point. Religion is focussed on inter-personal relationships and relationships in human societies. There are moral laws and guidelines for harmonious relationships.

There have been scientists who are christains, and christains have contributed immensely to science. No human system is perfect. Just as there have been times when so-called christains have done things that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ, Scientists have also made mistakes.

Scientic inventions are great, but what is the use of great inventions if it would be tools in the hands of depraved human beings?
Now, depraved human beings are no good, either they are affiliated to any religion (the fact that someone makes a claim to a religion does not make the claim a right one) Or if they are scientists.

True religion, as stated in James 1:27 in the Bible, is meant to give a human face to knowledge and science.

Sep 25 2012:
Sure you have heard this one before 'Reality is a social construction'. Humans incredibly complex and diverse and aware of self. Have to develop some kind of filtration system to process information received in minute by minute existence. Filtration partly within ourselves and partly in communities we live in. Idea that lives dictated by' a higher conscienceness' pervasive throughout culture and history. Maybe it is about finding a balance. A person might feel paralysed by the notion they are ultimately responsible for what happens in their lives, a social structure helps creativity and communication even if the end product is detrimental to a particular individual. Lucky enough to live where I can observe nature and the seasons. Never fail to be impressed by sheer opportunism of life force. People notice energy. Where does it come from and where does it go and how can an individual survive a chaotic and random existence without some belief system, no matter how irrational or insane.

Sep 26 2012:
Not 100 percent certain and a combination of many other people's ideas. Got idea from thinking about people who end up in psychiatric institutions (and big business). Tend to be people with very specific information filters in place. So much so that communication with a range of people compromised. Good for individual if makes them good fit for a particular business (something about driven business leaders often being psychopaths). Do like your big idea 'keep your money in your own pocket'. Confusion in younger generation good consumer somehow good citizen. Cheeky article on internet, if you don't use Facebook, you are some kind of social misfit. Author was arguing social media just another method of sifting potential customers for product selling. Hope not straying too far off original debate here.

Sep 26 2012:
I think I understand. In my forum, we like to talk about these ideas, not debate them. We seek to understand, not only the idea but the person behind the idea. You are invited to join if you like. There, we have more room to discuss idea then we come to TED to test those ideas (hopefully_ on qualified minds. I'm afraid I haven't seen many and those who are tend to be a tad irrational if you disagree with them. But, considering the fact many people who are not qualified tend to offer suggestions that sound justified instead of inquiring, I see whey these qualified people get frustrated.

Sep 25 2012:
I don't mean to be overly argumentative, but your closing line said biting and kicking were allowed :)

"My intentions in the debate, were to illicit comments on the issue of how people view atheism and it's characterization as almost a religion of total counter theism, rather than a debate on the idea of religion. If religion is theism, than is atheism simply anti-theism?"

Absolutely not. The prefix 'a' simply means "without." Asexual reproduction is reproduction without sex, not reproduction that is anti-sexual. Amoral means without morals, not bad morals or anti-morals. Likewise, atheism is without a belief in a personal god.

Sep 25 2012:
How would you suggest I correct this shoddy statement. I mean this sencerily. I would like to correct the statement and reach out to you for the proper criticism. Tim.

When I changed the list selection from newest to oldest, it became apparent to me that I've inappropriately answered some of your comments in a disorderly fashion.
Sorry. Later I will go back and alter those misnomers.

I'd like to start over with this reply. Do you think I'm implying that I'm a creationist of sorts, within the religious context or that I'm associating agnosticism with Creationism?

Sep 25 2012:
Sounds like you're up to the task Henry Woeltjen. I see our profile. you are an interesting individual. I used to live in Miami in the park with the rest of the hippies. :)

So you view yourself as Agnostic, is that correct?

And, that this stance gives you ammunition to compete with other stances like Religion (Thesis) or Atheism (athesis)? Do you think that both Atheism and religion exhibit cult like behavior, requiring adherence to an explicit set of rules and ritualism to maintain it's membership?
'

Sep 28 2012:
I'm right there with you on this. Well put. I'm not big on using logic in debates regarding this topic because it sort of becomes nonsensical to me. It's pretty simple, one cannot know. Using logic to try and 'win' a debate on this --semantics aside -- is fruitless in my book. burden of proof is irrelevant at best.

I think a good take-away from these lively debates could be asking oneself -- for those debating from the atheistic or theistic sides -- 'am I debating from a context of having to be right?' 'what bias am I bringing into the equation, how open am I?'

Sep 24 2012:
Atheists do not have a "blind faith in science." They simply default to the Null Position of not believing in something for which there is insufficient evidence.

As for your claims that agnostics view atheists as cultists because they "... requires blind belief God does not exist which is dogmatic because there is no proof (currently)..." this sounds eerily like what creationists say about atheists, not agnostics.

Atheists don't need proof to NOT believe in something. An atheist doesn't need proof that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. He's not in an atoothfairiest cult. Someone who doesn't believe in big foot is not an asasquatch cultist.

The idea of agnostics being the inventors of creationism seems pretty absurd. That's like saying the NFL created baseball's designated hitter rule.

Sep 24 2012:
Come on Tim. Man up and tell me what you really mean. I can see it in your message. I won't be offended. Are you aware that it takes, roughly the same amount of electrical energy to send a post as it does to move a 2000 lb. Vehicle 3 feet? Why so many words and welcome to TED. :)

Sep 25 2012:
Tim. Unless you can create knowledge out of thin air, I guess your right. ;)
Or, you could google it.

Good joke Tim.... I like you already.

I see you just joined up?

I don't understand the statement about agnostics or creationism. What do you mean?

Tim, most of this question has already been answered by other commentors. You might try reading the whole conversation. There is a button box where you can select oldest first to traverse the discussion from start to finish. I feel you question will be appropriate answered.

I have heard from other commentators that the setup of this system sometimes allows the conversation to appear confusing.

Sep 23 2012:
Hi John.
Good question.
As you probably know I would be considered as a Christian Fundamentalist on this site. However, looking at things analytically, I would say that we are really all Agnostic. We are all fallible humans; we all think we are right, but are all open to deluding ourselves, or just simply misunderstanding things.
I see a spectrum from Atheism to Fundamentalist, with guys like yourself in the centre. I came at this question seeking the truth of our existence, I studied the data & decided there had to be a designer. I studied the candidates & decided Jesus Christ was that designer. Changed my life. I assume Mr. Dawkins followed a similar path & decided Mr. Darwin had the right idea. We all decide for ourselves. Certainly many seem to be religious just for the sake of it, just like golf, or sailing; but to me that's a different issue.
So, if you consider Christianity to be a cult, then you should really consider Atheism one also. They are just different interpretations of the same data. I don't consider either to be a cult, but if it fills a need in some of us to reinforce a prejudice then I guess that's understandable.

Sep 23 2012:
I moved from one side of the question to the other, before finally settling in the middle to avoid all the rocks and bottles. but some of them landed on my property and almost hit me in the head a few times, if you now what I'm talking about. :)

So Peter I assume you've at least examined the flagellum of bacteria and seen the super micrograph photos of them. They look amazingly just like a machine don't they.

It easy for folk to defend the idea of evolution creating an eyeball, etc but when you get to the real itty biddy parts of the bigger machine, they start to take on the appearance of some very fundamental machinery we find in the garage and tool shed.

We must admit, in front of the backdrop of genetic research that the possibility to create life is a promising proposal in the laboratory at some time in our future. Genomic researchers like our fellow Tedster: Dr. Gabriel Moreno-Hagelsieb Associate Professor, Biology, are bringing this information to our attention everyday. In Dr. Gabo's case, sometimes many times for days, with a peculiar type of insistence, that can sometimes put people off. :)

Sometimes super intelligence comes with a price tag but, if we want the research we have to pay for it, not always in money :)

Amazing stuff. Hence the tag in my profile of Super Alien Scientists.

However. In my minds creationism will have to evolve towards a scientific stance to support their logic because Science is being hijacked to allude to a God creature with the expectations of dropping all that creation stuff and falling back to their "True word of God = the King James Bible" as soon as they capture a majority of the voters.

So it's better to look at these things and develop some kind of rational flow of dialog, that offers others the opportunity to try and identify this race of aliens instead of giving the impression that God is the one and only creature with the capacity to create life which is distinct from creating all reality

Sep 24 2012:
Hi John.
My training & career has been in mechanical engineering; most of my life has been involved in designing & building stuff. In the early days, when I looked at evolution, I was sort of persuaded, because it was to do with chemistry, about which I know zilch. However, thanks to electron microscopes we can see that this magical chemistry is really nano-engineering. The flagellum is just a little motor. I listened to a guy a while ago on about a part of the cell that seemed to act like a jet engine. He was interested in getting some effect, so he asked a jet engine guy how this could be achieved in a real jet. When he tried it in the cell, it did exactly as predicted.
There is nothing magical about engineering, it involves a lot of directed, intelligent, funded, effort. Nano engineering more so. The cat is out the bag, this universe is a precisely engineered mechanism; humans & all.
The majority of scientists down through the ages assumed a god of some sort. It is difficult to imagine such a uniform & predictable creation without a singular architect. This belief has never been a problem to doing science, & it isn't today. We can trust things to unfold in a predictable & orderly fashion.
The reason many creationists start from the bible, & work out wards is that it saves time. Like me, they have discovered that these 66 musty old books were authored by the same guy that created everything. They still have to do the science though, which they have been doing for hundreds of years. The only real contention is with evolution, the majority of scientific endeavour sails on regardless.
On the Super Alien Scientist front. This, of course, is a possibility, but we are still left with the question of where these guys come from, & what's the point in the whole shebang anyway ?

Peter said:
"However, thanks to electron microscopes we can see that this magical chemistry is really nano-engineering."

No, it really IS just chemistry. For example, those pictures you see of flagellum are artists renderings made so we can visualize how it works. They're drawn to look like mechanical parts because their function is being described in terms of mechanical parts that most will understand. Actual photos from the e-scope are grainy and only show the general shape.

That some things in nature act and/or look like things that man can engineer means nothing.

"The cat is out the bag, this universe is a precisely engineered mechanism; humans & all."

There are many examples of humans being very poorly designed. If we are the product of a Designer, he's no Master Engineer. More like a second-year liberal arts major who attended one chemical engineering lecture because he had a crush on one of the TAs.

"The reason many creationists start from the bible, & work out wards is that it saves time."

No, it's because they start and stop with the Bible. Where science and the Bible conflict, they'll just ignore the science. For example, C-14 dating is called completely useless by young-earthers. But when c-14 dating is used to date a tunnel under Jerusalem to Hezekiah's time (Hezekiah's tunnel), then suddenly C-14 dating is accurate and reliable.

Never heard anyone on either side argue that the flagellum is anything other than what is normally depicted. Atoms arranged in the form of a motor. This is cutting edge & no doubt will be clarified as time passes.

I have heard the poorly designed argument, what I have never heard is suggestions for a better one. We have to bear in mind that the creation is misfiring & we are stuck with disease, hatred, etc. In biology we also have the genetic load problem as mutations build up & make us ill.

C14 dating is accurate during recorded history as we can normally use an artefact of known age to fine tune the dates. Prior to recorded history we have to make assumptions & these tend to be weighted by our worldview. Eg. Whether or not a worldwide flood actually occurred can have a massive impact.

Sep 26 2012:
"Never heard anyone on either side argue that the flagellum is anything other than what is normally depicted. Atoms arranged in the form of a motor. This is cutting edge & no doubt will be clarified as time passes." ~Peter Law.

Sep 28 2012:
Hi John.
The vid is where I live. There is no getting away from the fact that we are machines; our bodies at any rate. Apparently if you take away half the flagellum components you are left with a hole in the cell wall. This is touted as proof that the flagellum is not irreducible complex, & so didn't require a designer. If you take the engine out of a car, you get a boggie; what does that prove ? The fact that there are millions of different mechanisms working away perfectly (or nearly so) is just swept aside. There is just no possibility of this level of sophistication arriving without design & forethought.

If you read a gravestone & it says 1000BC; then you dig up the corps & get a c14 reading, you can be fairly confident that anything giving the same reading is 1000BC. This will be the case regardless of nuclear explosions etc. If however you try to date something older than any artefact, you are into the unknown & your assumed starting values can be miles out. As the percentage of c14 is minuscule, the effect of any error is magnified. Then explosions, eruptions, floods etc become pivotal.
It was calculated that the c14 in the atmosphere should be stable after c30,000 years. Ie production would equal consumption. Recently it has been discovered that the percentage c14 is still rising, & is nowhere near equilibrium.. Work it out for yourself.

When you state we are all agnostic, that we really don't know for sure, you don't sound like a fundamentalist.

You may believe the bible is inerrant and that there is a spiritual realm and a triune god, but you are taking a slightly softer line than an absolutist of any stripe.

I agree with you we really don't know if there are gods or goddesses.

I suggest Christianity started as a cult, like Mormonism, like Buddhism, like Islam, but it is now an established religion like the others. Believers may still be part of a sub cult following particular Christian or Islamic leaders. Also, different believers may experience more or less cultish behaviours, such as being closed to outside influences and information.

I still think people are mixing up world views that may or may not be religious, associations that may or may not be cultish.

And also misunderstanding that atheism is a position on whether you believe in gods or not. You can be a buddhist, humanist, astrologer, even a scientoloist or anthing else, just not believe in gods. You can be an atheist and except evolution or not. You can be an atheist and not have any idea how old the universe is, just not believe in gods or goddeses.

Also science is not dogmatic in the same way religions are. 100 years ago we were only aware of one galaxy. the milky way. There were blurry objects the best telescopes could see called Nebula. With more powerful telescopes we can see billions of galaxies now. Big bang is also a theory that developed in the last 100 odd years. We only identified the background radiation from it in the last few decades. We only figured out the universe is expanding in the last few decades. Science is the process that delivers just our current best guess. Things will change in science.

To compare respect for science, that works - look at technology, with conflicting beliefs in thousands of gods and sects and dogmas, talking donkeys, virgin births, is a poor comparison indeed.

Also, the semantics tricks allow people like Deepak Chopra to make sentences including the word god which he knows includes anthropomorphic aspects to many but he sneakily borrows the word to for his own new age meaning e.g. God is the ultimate mystery that we cannot define. God is our highest potential to know ourselves and the end goal of our seeking.

Sep 23 2012:
it is meanless to talk about this .you know there is no bountries .you can belive or not .when things are going well.i dont think about this .when i am sad i may think of Buddhism.you know just for a better life .

Sep 23 2012:
Obey. The difference lies in the distinction between "ism" and "ist" One is a philosophical argument the other is a belief. This world "belief" has evolved over the years to mean many things it was not, I believe, intended to serve. Like many words, it has been hijacked from the social structure and bastardized to imply meaning to other ideas or objects.

The Epistemological understanding of the word "belief" (are you looking Gerald, Brian?): "The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true." ~ wikipedia.

Evidence is simply one of the assertions and not the sole priority.

"Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief. The primary problem in epistemology is to understand exactly what is needed in order for us to have true knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as "justified true belief" ~wikipedia.

So belief doesn't have to be proved, it only has to be justified and true.

So our job is to determine the "truth" of the argument stated in the question I posed in this debate. I have already "justified" it in my own mind and bring it to the table of discussion. You have given it "further justification" by contributing in the debate posed by the question.

I say that Agnosticism is the middle ground because Religion has taken the stance to "believe" that God exists, and Atheism has taken the stance that God does not exist and Agnostics have taken the stance to be skeptical of either of these extremes, based on their parity or reconciliation with ideas of difference between "belief" and "knowledge".

There is a difference between those who have a Philosophy of life and those who spend their life pursuing the Knowledge of life. And I ran out of Characters. Someone else can take over.

Comment deleted

Sep 22 2012:
Not another cult! Anybody can form a cult!
We all have boundaries of knowing and believing in a "God". I believe most belief systems can cause a digression of the thought process; specifically by actively shunning other beliefs and/or idolizing certain people. Blind faith in science seems crazier than blind faith in religion if you ask me. Neither should be allowed to stagnate and where it does is where you'll see people who lash out.

Sep 22 2012:
I've said this often Justin. Astronauts have blind faith in Science every time they leave the earth. Not all astronauts are scientists they didn't design the vehicle they have faith will work as designed. Sometimes it doesn't and we've seen the results on the news.

Blind faith is something you have to put on the line sometimes, especially if your faced with something that could do you great harm. With a cop or soldier, it's blind faith in the fact their weapon will work when needed.

I see you live in NC. I live in the state below you in Georgia, Canton. Do you sail?

Sep 22 2012:
It takes a sort of daredevil mentality to get on something with that many tons of jet fuel. It has to be quite a journey not for the feign of heart. I haven't spent much time on a sailboat, John, but I do live by the intracoastal waterway.

there are no people on earth who would be equally agnostic to god, vishnu and zeus. most agnostics would happily agree that zeus does not exist, nor vishnu. they are agnostic only about god. the reason being, of course, is they don't dare to piss off the intolerant religious friends, family members and other people around them.

Sep 21 2012:
Krisztian, I dont totally disagree with you, as i do not have much of a doubt that zeus did not exist, nor do I think Yehway exists, nor do I think any dogma that theism touts has an ounce of credibility outside of metaphor. I however, have my questions about a pantheistic God. If its one things humans naturally do it is to claim we know! we know this is true! and how many times has this turned out to be completely false. There are a vast amount of variables in regards to trusting the senses, I think the only thing one really accomplishes, when one claims to know if God does or does not exist, is a reduction in anxiety and a feeling of control.

Usually, when a scientist proposes a new idea, it is not done in the form of a claim that it is "absolutely true".

Some people following a concept called relativism assert that there is no absolute truth. And they quickly try to extend this concept to science by saying that what it is true today may be false tomorrow. It is indeed a common misconception

Today it is known that the shape of the earth is not flat but almost spherical. But some relativists would have me believe that tomorrow it could be found that the earth's form is actually a cube, or a pyramid!

I invite you to read this dissertation by Isaac Asimov, that tries to explain the way in which science considers an assertion to be right or wrong and the way new knowledge compares to old knowledge.

Science is not an open field where every theory today can be turned heads down tomorrow. The way science advances is by taking the previous theory and finding the narrow band of cases where the theory and data do not agree... and then a new theory is proposed that accounts for those discrepancies. But the new theory is identical to the old theory when discussing the cases where there was no prior disagreement with the data

Sep 21 2012:
Andres i understand this is true and never claimed it wasn't..... This is why I have my questions about a pantheistic concept of God and do not have questions about the laws of physics which science has clearly demonstrated to be true.